Archive for the ‘Life’ Category

God owns creation, and there’s nothing wrong with “proving” it, because He himself said in the writings of Psalms that the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork. Even the most important events in human and world history, the birth, death by crucifixion and resurrection, reflect themselves in evidence, as Paul’s teachings in the book of Acts and the epistles emphasize so much.

The foolishness of God is indeed wiser than the wisdom of men, who proclaiming themselves to be wise became fools. So it says too.

Despite the success of the anti-Christian and anti-theist propaganda machine, more and more evidence hits the science community with regularity now, and with the same dogmatic tenaciousness they immediately use the evidence that testifies to Biblical truth as if it supported them!

It’s the same logic that uses the failure of government programs to claim that we need more government!

Evidence of the Flood in the Grand Canyon, now they say it’s slow erosion. Sea fossils everywhere, even atop the highest mountains of the Himalayas. (My buddy from Iowa says they were all over the ground).

DNA, with the language of a symbolic digital computing machine more designed, more sophisticated, than all the Internet combined.

Pasteur disproved the Darwinian presumption of the say that life was constantly spontaneously appearing. So they said it was a long time ago, it could have happened, the alternative is believing the Bible, so forget it.

Then Mendel’s experiments and Lysenko’s flopping failure showed that kind indeed did beget after its own kind only, not into other kinds, so they said it took so long we can’t observe it.

Then they discovered DNA that so contradicted the spontaneous unguided myth that one of its discovered began to blame aliens. (See Michael Crichton’s essay, “Aliens Cause Global Warming”, and the Inquisition of the Faith of Darwinian Dogma proclaimed that they had gladly discovered how it all happened all by itself without intervention.

So they plagiarized the creationist idea of “natural selection” which had obviously showed how natural wild populations kept generally stable populations, and said that was the magic sauce. And don’t tell them they did not use the scientific method to conclude this, because they are the scientists and Darwinian’s heretics are kooks.

So then NASA scientists said we’ll prove it, we’ll send a satellite out to measure the magnetic fields of the outer gas giants and it’ll be so-and-so much.

–But creationist Russ Humphreys said, aha, it’s been this long since Creation happened around 6-7,000 years ago, and the universe was created starting with water as in Genesis, and this and that, and some calculations and voila. Based on Genesis One, it’ll be between x and y.

So it turned out that NASA was orders of magnitude off, Humphreys hit a bullseye, so NASA said no predictions about Mercury.

Darwin said no fossil record, no Darwinism.

Stephen Gould says the fossil record stands against evolution, so therefore the lack of it proves MY theory of evolution, which says that it happened in spurts so fast of COURSE we can’t find the fossils!

But of course the Creation itself is infused with the testimony to the Creation.

Mr. P. H. would have his readers believe that the Second Amendment was meant to ONLY protect the right of the *government* to “bear arms” for the protection of a “free state”!

Yessir, they say, the Founding Fathers knew that without a constitution that guaranteed the right of the government to bear arms, why, the poor Congress and the poor Executive and the poor government-financed Army and the militia that they organized would be left defenseless! Nobody would let them arm the police! How could they have a standing army!

You heard right. They do agree that these rights are for all individuals, and that the fourteenth amendment recognized that these rights extend to individual rights from all governments (federal, state, local):

–free exercise of religion
–freedom from a religious establishment (official church)
–speech
–press
–assembly
–petition the Government for redress
–freedom from forced hosting of soldiers, whether in time of peace or war both
–to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable and warrantless searches and seizures
–no holding to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury
–freedom from double jeopardy
–to refuse to be forced to testify against one’s self
–to one’s life, liberty AND property, except by *due process* of law (not arbitrary process)
–freedom eminent domain except for a public purpose
–fair compensation for properties seized under eminent domain
–if accused, a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of peers, to confront witnesses against him, assistance of counsel, and to obtain witnesses in his own favor
–and, no excessive bail
–ALL other rights even if not enumerated

But some people say that there is one that was included in this list of INDIVIDUAL rights that was the ONE exception. That is, they say, that the right to defend your freedom against your own government is a right that they reserved for only the government itself!?!

This is my reaction to a Reason article defending “guilt-free” voluntary abortion:

“We understand that a fetus at, say, 10 weeks is very different than one at 20 or 30 weeks”

What we “understand” is that a fetus that you can look at of 20 or 30 weeks looks a lot more human.

But if you go frame by frame backwards from 20 weeks in 24 hour intervals, it’s not only NOT “very different”, it’s very much the SAME. The *reason” being, that it IS the same creature there, the same human creature.

Is a caterpillar not the earlier stage of a butterfly??

Here in the days of “Reason”, when people who think themselves “reasonable”, have no trouble imagining that eukaryotes and prokaryotes, in their own mature “adult” stages, are their own ancestors, it is most laughingly unreasonable to reject thinking of the youngest of human creatures as if they are only what, wait, part of the mother’s own body??#@!! This is “reason”?

Take a DNA sample from the little pre-tyke. Only HALF that DNA came from the mother, and HALF from the father, and I’ll bet you donuts to dollars that the resulting epigenetics will express the inherited motherly genes differently than in the mother’s body.

Hell’s bells, with much frequency, we know that on occasion the baby’s blood and the mother’s blood are even *different types*!

How is that the same “body”? It’s one body inside another.

I saw one comment by a self-professed witch who was at least more honest in the acknowledgement that it was a little human, but justified killing it by calling it a parasite.

Shame on libertarians who are NOT Nazis in general but who do the same thing in an arbitrary situation, and simply say it’s okay to kill a certain class of human being because it’s not a human being.

As much as pro-abortion defenders want to convince themselves, there’s a reason mothers feel guilty when they let their fathers and their boyfriends hustle them into doing what the maternal instinct screams out at them is wrong.

You don’t have to be a Christian to oppose prenatal infanticide. In fact, most of the time I’ve heard Christians talking about it even on the Establishment Christianity media (whom are mostly despicable in their neo-con opinions), the arguments are secular in nature:

It’s just a little easier to see clearly on some issues for somebody who really believes in a just God that will require a little bit of TRUE reasoning, some good *logical* reasoning for their ethical choices.

As to guilt, Christ offers the *only* guilt-free answer to post-abortion syndrome. After all, he said, “I came not to condemn the world”, and there is also Isaiah 1:18:

“Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.”

Reason’s Nick Gillespie has penned an article that points to his “latest column up at Time“. That’s the magazine that was going bankrupt without any offers from the hoped-for buyers until another leftist millionaire saved it for *one*, that’s right, one, dollar.

These days, God is dead everywhere except at movie theaters. But rest easy, America, that doesn’t mean we’re spiraling into an amoral abyss or a lawless society. Indeed, by most indicators of anti-social behavior, things have never been better.

Hey, Nick, did you really think about that? The biggest organization in the United States that has the most guns and big firepower in the country just went through an episode in which they threatened to shoot down the peaceful demonstrators. After Waco, do you doubt they would have done it, if not for the cameras watching them? And just maybe, some people who had come to support the victim and who were ready to shoot back?

The entire flying public in the land is groped, molested and radiated by the biggest armed gang in the country, the federal government, 2 million!, that’s millions, every single day, in an act that violates the supreme law of the land, and this is not a lawless society on the abyss? Or do you think this aggression is peaceful and lawful simply because the public accepts it?

Reason’s web site itself reports on the growing problem of abuse rained upon the subjects of our new national fiefdom by the enforcers of the law.

The national culture has also grown in the easier acceptance of the taking of human life, too. Four states already have legislation permitting physician-assisted suicide. There are babies newly born alive across the land that have a sign above their crib in hospitals that read “N.B.O.”: “Nothing by mouth”. They would never call it “IBS”, would they? (“Infanticide By Starvation”).

Is not partial birth abortion a brutal procedure more reminiscent of a society that accepts aggression against its most helpless neighbors? Call it legalized lawlessness, what it is.

And it’s incredible that with a wave of a hand you think you can dismiss what you said in your second quoted paragraph?

Even as polls and church-attendance records show the U.S. is becoming a more secular, less pious country, current films such as Heaven is for Real (based on a best-selling account of a four-year-old boy’s supposed trip to the afterlife) and Noah (based on the Old Testament’s account of the Great Flood) have done boffo business.

Noah is closing in on $100 million, the line that separates mere hits from blockbusters, and Heaven is for Real easily bested Johnny Depp’s poorly reviewed meditation on computer-enabled immortality, Transcendence. God’s Not Dead, a drama about a college freshman challenging his professor’s atheism, is also performing strongly, and so is Son of God, the latest cinematic version of the life of Jesus.

Expect to see more Christian and religiously themed movies as a result…. Yet there’s no reason to think that such movies will do anything to stanch the broad and ongoing decline in religiosity. And there’s even less reason to worry about the trend toward a less godly country….

Your question at the end for comment, in my opinion, may even show a suspicion in your own mind that you are missing something.

It’s certain that people are “less religious” than before, and they are, according to the generalized statistics. But here again we have a very disparate collection of groups in such surveys, all incorporated into totals that treat them all as one blob.

What you missed is the movement OUT of the churches and out of the traditionally recognized churches that go into the official counts and are used for the surveys, but the ones who have the strongest faith are not quitting Christ or Christianity.

Instead, Christians are finding fellowship and Bible study in the form of volunteer service in soup kitchens, old homes, schools and elsewhere, and of course in home fellowships.

You also missed something else. Part of why Christianity is in decline is the way itwas enticed into joining government registration systems, a result associated with Senator LyndonBaynes Johnson’s insertion of “religious organizations” into the IRS tax legislation. The influence of Bush’s “faith-based initiative” is an example of Montesquieu insight that the best way to diminish Christian faith by giving them benefits.

So of course government-sponsored and government-blessed religiosity is in decline. The false shepherds and the ones who seek easy benefit will abandon the institutions when it gets difficult.

In general, it may still decline. But let me take a stab at a guess. I’ll bet that with Ron Paul’s campaign you were surprised, even startled, at the great numbers of people you discovered that rushed to support him and came out of the censorship-enforced woodwork to blast out messages proclaiming how Christianity’s strongest doctrine of the love of God and the love of others directly means obeisance to the non-aggression principle.

Christians are already hated in many places. But do not think that atheism offers a transcendent basic morality to support the non-aggression principle. Christianity’s Golden Rule does. I hope you know what it says. I’ve been told there are many who don’t know that the “Golden Rule” is, except for the stupid joke you hear sometimes.

The countries with the highest rates of alcohol-related deaths were mostly in Central America, including El Salvador (27.4 out of 100,000 deaths each year), Guatemala (22.3 out of 100,000) and Nicaragua (21.3 out of 100,000).

Overall, men accounted for 84 percent of alcohol-necessary deaths, though the male-to-female ratio varied from country to country. In El Salvador, the risk of a man dying from an alcohol-necessary cause was 27.8 times higher than that of a woman, while in the United States and Canada, the risk was 3.2 times higher.

There were also differences in age groups for alcohol mortality between countries. In Argentina, Canada, Costa Rica and the U.S., the highest mortality rates occurred in individuals between 50 and 69 years of age. In Brazil, Ecuador and Venezuela, the highest mortality rates were seen in individuals between 40 and 49 years of age.

BEIJING (April 18, 2009) Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Gary Roughead speaks with Adm. Wu Shengli, Commander-in-Chief of the People’s Liberation Army Navy, during a visit to PLA Navy headquarters in Beijing. Roughead visited China to participate in the 60th anniversary of the founding of the PLA Navy and to foster naval and military relationships between the two nations and explore areas for enhanced cooperation. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication 1st Class Tiffini M. Jones/Released) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

About Point 2: In their own Mayflower Compact, they listed as a principal reason to come to America was as a witness to the Indians for salvation in Jesus Christ.

Point 3: It wasn’t “the first Thanksgiving“, exactly, but it is symbolically and significantly, because it was a thanksgiving celebration to thank first God and secondly to express gratitude toward the Indian neighbors..

About Point #5, you give too much overblown credit in your own mind to the “divine right” idea. Like one famous preacher said once about a drunk, he said “There but for the grace of God go I”, meaning he was not any better than that drunk. They were possibly thankful to God himself that the King had opened these new lands to them. And there are millions upon millions of Biblical Christians who regard it as an act of the grace of God that King James was the king during those years, because today we have the legacy, the evidence, the fruit, in the King James Bible. It is such a magnificent piece of literature, and as even the skeptical Napoleon recognized, much more than just literature, that even militant atheist proselytizer Richard Dawkins said he was honored to add his voice to a voice recording of it.

How about another great point or two:

Squanto was the first American Indian they encountered and in one of those “coincidences” he happened to speak fluent English, “the king’s English” as it is called, and became intermediary between the Indians and them, and he was Christian.

When the Pilgrims and the natives got together on that famous first at least most famous and earliest well-known day of giving thanks, to whom do you think the Pilgrims were giving thanks? Read this found at “http://www.thetimesnews.com”&#8230;

In the novel and movie, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, the hero of the story is a troubled girl who was the victim of a spy and security apparatus operating within the Swedish government, and victim of abuse by her state-appointed supervisors. But she is a prodigy in matters of hacking, which works in the story to do justice.

Oh, and by the way, the book trilogy author inserts the question in strategically rare spots about why that particular tattoo. In the books, it turns out that the girl was briefly a member in an all-girls’ grunge band with a name suggestive of Satanism. (Sorry, I don’t remember the name and search engines are not helpful). Thus, again, we see another case where the author is probably hiding his sympathies behind hints that let the reader “draw his own conclusion”.

But then the author was pretty clear in his choice of villainy. He hits a target everybody in the world always uses as an example of evil, Hitler and his Nazis, and combines it with a target he apparently hates, of course using some verses in the Bible. But note, people, that no Christian does those practices anymore and almost all varieties of Christian doctrines even condemn them today, and almost all Biblical interpretations say are superseded by the Law of Love we get from Jesus Christ.

Never mind also that now with the reach of the Internet Reformation, we all know that Hitler –and his Nazis– hated Christianity as much as he hated the Jews. Even almost as much as the voices that claim the state was supposed to separate religion from having any say representation in government.

In the books, her story finally got publicity out and the truth is told and the defamed and disgraced journalist is vindicated.

Contrast that with the very public way in which the Swedish government has persecuted a family for homeschooling their son, and persecuting them in a way that the Nazis would have cheered whole-heartedly. As a matter of fact, Germany is now using a law that they say bans home schooling, passed into law by the Nazi dictatorship, where as we speak the German regime is attempting to do the same things to other families there in Germany.

The figuratively jack-booted Swedish authorities marched Nazi-style, in fact, onto a flight that was ready to take off, and yanked off the son and marched him off into government centers. No doubt he is as we speak under the thumb of official indoctrination specialists to do an Orwellian on him, so they can use him later to denounce the very people that tried to protect him from turning into a state “zombified” robot.

It’s not “Father Knows Best” anymore, it is Big Boss knows best, Great Leader knows best, in the dominant culture. God help us.

Thank God that eventually when their cup of evil is full, He Himself will put an end to these evils that men to do men.

(Starting with the identity thieves and hypocrites that use his name in vain every Sunday or Saturday or Friday in churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples.)

Ezekiel 8 :12 Then said he unto me, Son of man, hast thou seen what the ancients of the house of Israel do in the dark, every man in the chambers of his imagery? for they say, the Lord seeth us not; the Lord hath forsaken the earth.

13 He said also unto me, Turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations that they do.

14 Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the Lord’s house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz.

15 Then said he unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations than these.

16 And he brought me into the inner court of the Lord’s house, a nd, behold, at the door of the temple of the Lord, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the Lord, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east.

17 Then he said unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? Is it a light thing to the house of Judah that they commit the abominations which they commit here? for they have filled the land with violence, and have returned to provoke me to anger: and, lo, they put the branch to their nose.

18 Therefore will I also deal in fury: mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity: and though they cry in mine ears with a loud voice, yet will I not hear them.

I think humans should respect the rights of girls inside the womb, not just the one with the body outside the womb.

How many more women to die? Never mind that Bernard Nathanson (“The Silent Scream“) video, who testified in Roe v Wade, has repented after watching ultrasound later on, and in answer to a question about the 10,000 women who died in “back-alley” abortions, he said they just “made it up” (his words) because it sounded like a really big number.

So who knows, really. But meantime there is a killing field of little girls (let’s remember the boys, too okay?)

CIA World Fact Book says China has a population from 0 to 14 years old of 124,773,577 male and 107,286,198 female. This means a ratio of 1.163:1 of boys to girls. The natural ratio is something like 1.05 to 1.00. God arranged it that way because males die at a higher rate of death during the earliest years, and normally it balances out. This pattern is seen in statistics I’ve looked at for the U.S.A., too…

That means for a population of that many young males, calculating from the ratio, a “normal” number of females would be 124,773,577. Subtracting the number of girls in their actual census, that means that 11,545,780 girls are missing. They are victims of abortion, a side effect of the one-child policy. And that’s not even counting the number you get if you calculate out the number corresponding to the boys that are also killed in the womb.

Those are real girls who are killed then too, in scalding, burning salt solutions, or their little limbs torn apart inside, or in partial-birth abortion their brains are sucked out from their head through a tube after the rest of the body is kicking outside the womb already.

The militant anti-Christian opinion-setters and propagandists want you to think this is just a Christian cause. Do a Web search on the words “pro life atheists” and there are a bunch of links to “godless prolifers” (as in www.godlessprolifers.com). The fact is, it is a human life.

An important libertarian principle is that individuals are morally and objectively responsible for the consequences of their own actions. Once you have been confronted with the obvious fact that the baby inside the womb is a human being, you have a responsibility to avoid murdering it. This is a fact of innate knowledge in “expectant” mothers, in fact, as so many women in the Silent No More movement have said. They are only “expectant” in the sense they are “expecting” the birth of the baby, in which the baby emerges from inside.

The BIG LIE is to try to talk about abortion (ending the life of the baby inside) as “reproductive rights”. This is Orwellian newspeak, and it is amazing to watch minds adapt this terminology –like Tibor Machan– who in other contexts see through them. After all, he is more intellectually honest than most libertarians in some of his writings that make clear that the fall of socialists –sometimes “with a vengeance”– is all the fault of the CIA.

We all know now that when you have sex, often a conception occurs of a new human being. We all know as well that there is no 100% sure contraception. Babies often happen in spite of these measures. If you engage in the sex, and a baby grows within, then the obligation to respect the non-aggression principle applies. This is not just a “duty” to save a life, something Walter Block has argued against quite effectively.

In fact, due to the dependency that a baby has, I’ve read libertarians argue that the woman has a duty to find an adoptive couple (or even person) if at all possible before killing it. I argue from the principle of consquences that becoming a parent involves positive duty.

This might be seen as requiring a positive right of the baby as individual. That may be, but this is one area were the individual responsibility for the consequences is a special case, since the parent bore that new life and that new human life requires some amount of care in order to merely survive to an age where he can make decisions for himself. The parent is responsible for the baby’s existence, the parent made it happen.

You broke it you bought it, says a sign in big letters easily visible as you enter the china shop. You’re on the shop owner’s property, you follow the rules. It’s a comparable idea. You conceived it (talking about the father too) you “own” it but anything you do that purposefully endangers that baby’s life is an aggression, and therefore is not acceptable.

So now let’s address the REAL issue in these discussions about abortion.

Abortion apologists all KNOW that the debate from the pro-life side is about the BABY. That’s why it’s always “reproductive rights”, as if killing the baby had anything to do with reproduction anyway. The Germans had no “reproductive right” to kill even one Jew for being a Jew, or a Gypsy, or the millions of Christians he did in.

But to women who have done this, there are lots of women who have found their way back to peace and now warn other women, younger women (This is relevant to the debate because women have a natural compulsion within themselves to protect their babies, and it is indoctrinated out of them by depopulation engineers. Or sometimes other factors drive them.)

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

I used to be an atheist as a young collegiate, but determined to keep an open mind to find the truth whatever it was, I followed science, history, and logic to discover that the Bible was true. For that reason, I am strongly against any coercion of believers.

Believing on Christ is not necessary for living peacefully with your neighbors but it helps you do so if you really believe you will have to answer in this life and the next to a God of love that requires it.

Romans 12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.”

But an atheist can follow the laws of love better than a Christian in some cases. It’s easier for them if:

#1 They are raised in a culture with a post-Christian legacy from prior generations of respect for the neighbor (noise about the “bad” old days are greatly exaggerated)

#2 They are not raised in a pagan culture like pre-Christian cultures (Even Charles Darwin rebuked an anti-Christian comment in a British paper, explaining how ALL world travelers having to drop anchor off a remote Pacific island felt relief if they saw a steeple of a Christian church. “Whew! We won’t BE dinner tonight”.)

#3 They were NOT raised under an oppressive dictatorship of official atheist government and without clandestine Christian influence. A former fellow employee of mine had helped the Ukraine transition to more of a free market economy. The Russian mafia was much more ruthless than the gangs from other places because they were trained in godless atheism.

Now with the decline of Christianity and the other monotheistic beliefs in the West we already see a decline in the respect for earthly life. Christians are more likely to be pro-life not because of their “religion” directly, but because the philosophy of respect for life is external to their own determinations. It’s much harder to commit prenatal infanticide if you know you are accountable to a real God, it’s easier if you can make up what’s good in your own eyes. When you already believe in a real God you can’t see with your eyes but you know he exists the same way you know that the invisible wind is something real, then it’s harder to claim a baby that looks the same outside and inside the womb is not a baby if you can’t see it, or it’s not breathing.

If you love someone, you don’t always do what they ask for so they’ll feel better about themselves. Proverbs 27:6 says ” Faithful are the woundsofafriend; but the kisses ofan enemy are deceitful.” The foremost champions of aiding self-euthanasia, assisted suicide, they know it is no help to the victim. Anybody who is sick, if you love them you will seek to build their morale, you won’t affirm their desires to die. When I was a teen I told my uncle I wanted to die and he encouraged me. Later on he tried it himself, but failed, and shortly after that he married a very good lady that loved him and raised children with him, including a beautiful daughter.

The main problem in at least the majority of cases is the interference of government in such highly personal decisions. I don’t want my family to spend millions or even tens of thousands on me if I get to need such huge treatment just to stay alive, but err on the side of life, always. If the government does not pay for such treatments there would be fewer chances for controversy. I do not have the right to take your money, even if it’s tax money, even if it’s deceitful fiat currency, for my million-dollar treatment.